Nationalism

[Zanters]

What are your views of nationalism? What are some good Marxist critiques of nationalism?

I am starting to view nationalism as a bridge to ultranationalism which can lead to fascism. Nationalism appears to be very reactionary, from other outside forces.

[Blake's Baby]

Luxemburg, The National Question: http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/

Of course fascism is built on nationalist ideology. What else would it be built on?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What are your views of nationalism? What are some good Marxist critiques of nationalism?

I am starting to view nationalism as a bridge to ultranationalism which can lead to fascism. Nationalism appears to be very reactionary, from other outside forces.

This is besides the point perhaps (yeah, nationalism is reactionary, I don't think anyone here will dream of denying that), but the term "ultranationalism" never ceases to amaze me. Is there some number of miliplekhanovs when "nationalism" turns to "ultranationalism"? It's a nonsensical term, and one that is used to portray fascist nationalism as something unique, thus amnestying liberal nationalism and so on. Certainly the Italian liberals who supported the annexation of Libya, of Albania etc. were no different than the Italian fascists who supported the same - in fact the former had a tendency to become the latter.

[G4b3n]

The nationalism of the imperialist powers is probably the most destructive political force on the planet. Also, I am critical of the "nationalism of the oppressed", but they are certainly two completely different worlds and the latter is not inherently harmful although it normally is.

[Tim Cornelis]

Of course we can distinguish an ultra-nationalism. A nationalism that is expanionist and chauvinist. Sometimes supremacy interwoven in that. That's quite distinct from liberal nationalism, popular sovereignty, etc.

[Blake's Baby]

The nationalism of the imperialist powers is probably the most destructive political force on the planet. Also, I am critical of the "nationalism of the oppressed", but they are certainly two completely different worlds and the latter is not inherently harmful although it normally is.

Of course it's inherently harmful.

'Oppressed nations' (among whom the bourgeoisie never seem as oppressed as the workers and peasants) can only be freed from oppression when the working class of the oppressed nations join with the working class of the 'oppressor nations'. Any ideology that binds the 'oppressed' working class to the 'oppressed' bourgeoisie instead harms the chances of working class unity that is the only way out of the dilemma - to overthrow the whole corrupt lot of international capitalism and all states, 'oppressor' and 'oppressed' alike.

[kuriousoranj]

Nationalism supposes that I should have more in common with my boss than with another worker who happens to live on another piece of land. It is absolute nonsense. I have never been to, for instance, Sunderland, but I am supposed to feel like it somehow belongs to me more than an immigrant who has lived there for years? Really?

[Atsumari]

I am a nationalist and I have supported many nationalist movements, not out of pride or chauvinism, but rather out of a need to transform a group of people's identity to something else, often from ethnic conflict and warlordism to a united group. Secondly, I support nationalism if it is also used for the group to define who they are rather than having others define them
In 19th and 20th century China, the nationalism promoted by Sun Yat Sen was very important and very practical for the anti-colonial struggle and for unity. The region was humiliated by colonial powers and the warlords and the imperial court was either fighting among each other or bought out by the west. In this case, nationalism was very key for the masses to create a state and get rid of these corrupt people. After national unity, only then can serious discussions about modern political ideologies, both radical and moderate, both left and right can be begin.

The reason why European countries, Americans, and Japanese do not need nationalism because unity for all ethnic groups (major ones) has been achieved and the people have so much control over themselves that they can even control the destinies of other people outside their borders. In the case of disenfranchised minorities in these countries where the dominant group is capable of jingoism, then nationalism is acceptable as a means of expressing control of one's destiny. The Black Panthers, I Wor Kuen, and Young Lords are examples of this.

tl;dr not all forms of nationalism are Western nor jingoistic

[Atsumari]

Nationalism supposes that I should have more in common with my boss than with another worker who happens to live on another piece of land. It is absolute nonsense. I have never been to, for instance, Sunderland, but I am supposed to feel like it somehow belongs to me more than an immigrant who has lived there for years? Really?
In regards to right-wing nationalism, their perspective on capitalism is very interesting.
After an economic crisis caused by greedy CEOs and corrupt bankers, they seem to view nationalism as a way to build trust among the people in contrast to liberal capitalism which is every man for himself. By convincing the worker and the boss that they are one family and you are psychotic by wanting to hurt your own family, then to them, it is not exactly crazy.

[Sinister Intents]

I am a nationalist and I have supported many nationalist movements, not out of pride or chauvinism, but rather out of a need to transform a group of people's identity to something else, often from ethnic conflict and warlordism to a united group. Secondly, I support nationalism if it is also used for the group to define who they are rather than having others define them
In 19th and 20th century China, the nationalism promoted by Sun Yat Sen was very important and very practical for the anti-colonial struggle and for unity. The region was humiliated by colonial powers and the warlords and the imperial court was either fighting among each other or bought out by the west. In this case, nationalism was very key for the masses to create a state and get rid of these corrupt people. After national unity, only then can serious discussions about modern political ideologies, both radical and moderate, both left and right can be begin.

The reason why European countries, Americans, and Japanese do not need nationalism because unity for all ethnic groups (major ones) has been achieved and the people have so much control over themselves that they can even control the destinies of other people outside their borders. In the case of disenfranchised minorities in these countries where the dominant group is capable of jingoism, then nationalism is acceptable as a means of expressing control of one's destiny. The Black Panthers, I Wor Kuen, and Young Lords are examples of this.

tl;dr not all forms of nationalism are Western nor jingoistic

So, do you support national liberation then?

I do not support it and nationalism, to me, seems a rather bourgeois idea no matter how it is cut, copied, and pasted down. Though certainly it has it's uses in uniting people for a cause, under a unified idea of liberation of those people, but that centralized idea means that a minority must help lead the nation, and this minority can exert its hegemony, and when the nation grows and expands it does what all nations do, attempt to conquer and spread itself abroad. Or maybe I'm over thinking this in my exhausted state.

Still though, I'm opposed to nationalism, and I'm opposed to the creatures that it often creates and distorts for the benefit of those at the top. Nationalism is often the animal exclaiming its love for its cage, and I suppose this could further be stated that the animal may be seeking a better cage through national liberation. This cage still remains a cage with shackles, chains, and all the amenities provided by a cage. No matter how padded, cushy, and purple the chains get, they're still chains, and nationalism remains a bourgeois idea.

[Atsumari]

So, do you support national liberation then?

I do not support it and nationalism, to me, seems a rather bourgeois idea no matter how it is cut, copied, and pasted down. Though certainly it has it's uses in uniting people for a cause, under a unified idea of liberation of those people, but that centralized idea means that a minority must help lead the nation, and this minority can exert its hegemony, and when the nation grows and expands it does what all nations do, attempt to conquer and spread itself abroad. Or maybe I'm over thinking this in my exhausted state.

After national unity, the nation can end up going in many different paths. It can become a republic, a communist government, an expansionary fascist state, maybe it will have a reaction and go back to monarchy, or national unity may fail and the people end up killing each other again. When talking about politics, we have to stop talking in absolutes and realize that many different outcomes are possible. Basically, a gamble rather than a mathematical formula.


Still though, I'm opposed to nationalism, and I'm opposed to the creatures that it often creates and distorts for the benefit of those at the top. Nationalism is often the animal exclaiming its love for its cage, and I suppose this could further be stated that the animal may be seeking a better cage through national liberation. This cage still remains a cage with shackles, chains, and all the amenities provided by a cage. No matter how padded, cushy, and purple the chains get, they're still chains, and nationalism remains a bourgeois idea.

Whenever I play poker, I am not going to keep on folding until I have nothing left because I did not get my royal flush.
India has create a bourgeois state when they got independence which is still miserably poor and frustratingly corrupt, but there are no more famines and the people are at least able to have some more political power.
In Vietnam, the communist party has had its up and downs and created a market "socialist" economy, but even the Vietnamese chefs I work with everyday who are all incredibly anti-communist still take pride in kicking out the French and both of them are actually Ho Chi Mihn fans and insist he was not a communist, but rather a nationalist which I think they are correct. When they speak of anti-communism, it is mostly directed towards China funnily enough.

[Tim Cornelis]

Nationalism supposes that I should have more in common with my boss than with another worker who happens to live on another piece of land. It is absolute nonsense. I have never been to, for instance, Sunderland, but I am supposed to feel like it somehow belongs to me more than an immigrant who has lived there for years? Really?

I'd say it is highly likely you have more in common with your boss in comparison to a worker from Thailand -- culturally. We should stress that workers the world over have the same class interests, and that doesn't necessarily translate to lifestyle commonalities. May seem pedantic, but I think it's an important distinction.

[Sinister Intents]

After national unity, the nation can end up going in many different paths. It can become a republic, a communist government, an expansionary fascist state, maybe it will have a reaction and go back to monarchy, or national unity may fail and the people end up killing each other again. When talking about politics, we have to stop talking in absolutes and realize that many different outcomes are possible. Basically, a gamble rather than a mathematical formula.

That's very true, I'd hope that the national liberation would result in a communist style government, perhaps more like what the early soviets were when the anarchists and other social revolutionists paved the way for which Bolsheviks set up shop later, but then they set up the rule of Moscow, and slowly the Soviet state sought it's interests and the Bolsheviks had no confidence or trust in the people and items in which worker's control could have came from ended up becoming puppets to the Soviet state. They persecuted those that opposed the Bolsheviks, and they removed these people by force. A nation could certainly go any direction, but there still exists that threat that a state created will become a state maintaining it's own power for the benefit of those in control of it.

[Blake's Baby]

A 'nation' can't go in any direction. If you want 'workers' power' then the 'nation' - a collaboration of workers and bourgeoisie - must tear itself apart.

Fuck all nations.

[Sinister Intents]

A 'nation' can't go in any direction. If you want 'workers' power' then the 'nation' - a collaboration of workers and bourgeoisie - must tear itself apart.

Fuck all nations.

More, national liberation can go in different directs, but the state erected still remains the bourgeois construction that it always will be. I am opposed to all nations and national liberation, but I am rather neutral to very weary on national liberation subject considering what national liberation has historically created. VietNam after all became a very terrible place to be

[Atsumari]

A 'nation' can't go in any direction. If you want 'workers' power' then the 'nation' - a collaboration of workers and bourgeoisie - must tear itself apart.

Fuck all nations.

If the hierarchy looks like this:
Colonialist
Emperor
Warlord
Bourgeoisie
Petie-Bourgeoisie
Worker/Peasant

Then I will gladly let the bourgeoisie down to the peasants get rid of the first three scumbags and allow themselves to realize that they may not like each other as much as they thought.

Such statements are very similar to the self-righteous leftists who accuse Mao for setting aside the worker's struggle to collaborate with the Kuomintang and some warlords in a few cases to take on the Japanese. It is impossible to talk of worker's taking control of society by waging war against the bourgeoisie when for one, organizing worker based politics SURPRISINGLY does not happen that easily and two, there are bigger existential threats out there than the bourgeoisie such as the Brits and their opium alongside their collaborators.

[Sinister Intents]

Nations remain exclusive though, they're generally one group of people and tend to be exclusionary of others, even though they may consider some allies. Mao's China proved a terrible autocratic state with Mao, his family, and the communist party at it's head. It's vastly important for worker's control to exist otherwise the worker's continue to get oppressed and exploited. The workers must liberate themselves and eliminate this idea of nationality because of it's corrosive effects.

[Atsumari]

Nations remain exclusive though, they're generally one group of people and tend to be exclusionary of others, even though they may consider some allies. Mao's China proved a terrible autocratic state with Mao, his family, and the communist party at it's head. It's vastly important for worker's control to exist otherwise the worker's continue to get oppressed and exploited. The workers must liberate themselves and eliminate this idea of nationality because of it's corrosive effects.
I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not advocating a national identity as an end, I am advocating that as a means.
Let me use an example of computers here to try to get my point across. btw, I do not know too much about hardware but I hope it does itself justice.

Computers way back in the day were incredibly slow, big, and difficult to use. When it came to accessing files, people had to go through an entire miserable process to do so, I do not know the details, but the elders told me about it.
Then people were able to access files by simply moving a cursor, click, and there you go, but computers were still slow, crappy, and difficult to use. Does that mean that any new ideas that come along should be rejected because it does not produce the perfect computer or maybe it will not work? Of course not.

With that said, people who are advocating a a great leap forward to an end of history are at best, people who think that the moral high ground is good enough for politics.

[Blake's Baby]

If the hierarchy looks like this:
Colonialist
Emperor
Warlord
Bourgeoisie
Petie-Bourgeoisie
Worker/Peasant

Then I will gladly let the bourgeoisie down to the peasants get rid of the first three scumbags and allow themselves to realize that they may not like each other as much as they thought...

But as we've reached the 20th and even 21st century, your categories are meaningless. No-where in the world do these categories actually exist. Warlords are bourgeois and the bourgeoisie are warlords.


...Such statements are very similar to the self-righteous leftists who accuse Mao for setting aside the worker's struggle to collaborate with the Kuomintang and some warlords in a few cases to take on the Japanese. It is impossible to talk of worker's taking control of society by waging war against the bourgeoisie when for one, organizing worker based politics SURPRISINGLY does not happen that easily and two, there are bigger existential threats out there than the bourgeoisie such as the Brits and their opium alongside their collaborators.

Boo hoo, organising among workers is hard. Much easier to collaborate with the class enemy than to do some fucking organising work. Poor little Mao, writing his agricultural reports for the KMT, while they massacred the Shanghai workers.


Why not the other way around, the working class of the imperialist countries joining with the working class of subjugated neo-colonies? Why put it all on the weakest?...

Because no-one here is saying that (for example) working-class Israeli nationalism is positive. But they are implying that Palestinian nationalism is positive. It isn't. It's the Israeli working class that will stop the IDF, not the 'Palestinian people (workers and bourgeois)'. If the Palestinian working class allies with 'it's own' bourgeoisie, its oppression will continue. The Israeli working class can free itself by attackign its own bourgeoisie. The Palestinian working class can't, but it's a start.



... What about the ideology that binds the proletariat of oppressed people to the bourgeoisie of dominate nations? ...

Like what? I don't see many Palestinians identifying with the Israeli ruling class.


... Chauvinism is a two-way street, and one side is wider without potholes. Neo-colonialism and racism are very real threats to the proletariat. I don't think you meant it like this, but it comes across like when people say the fight against racism and the patriarchy is a distraction from the working class. Can't we combat all oppression?

You may not believe this but I do: the working class is not divided because it is racist, it is racist because it is divided. We combat all oppression by combatting class society, we don't combat class society by siding with the ruling class in single-issue campaigns to change the surface features of our exploitation.

Is society racist because people are racist, or are people racist because society is racist?

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

I doubt I would be any happier being oppressed by one from my country than any other.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I never thought I would actually see nationalism being openly supported on RevLeft, but there you have it. We need to unite with our bourgeoisie against warlords (who are bourgeois), and apparently this is best done with warlord backing and by becoming a warlord, like the GMD leadership. Then socialism will happen at some later point. "Democracy now, socialism later." I mean, that has never actually worked, but such a minor detail apparently isn't going to stop people from trying.

I would dispute, however, that upholding the democratic demand of national self-determination is nationalist. It is a weapon against nationalism.

For example, I don't really care about the borders of my beloved country, may it get hit by an asteroid. It has to be overthrown either way. And as things stand, it seems to me that the Serbs living in Croatia do not want secession. But if they did, how should I react? "No, you can't secede, the borders of bourgeois Croatia are sacred?" I would come off as nothing but a chauvinist and petty patriot. Of course, ultimately the Serb and Croat proletariat need to work together - but such cooperation is possible across state borders, and is easier without the poison of nationalism in the workers' movement. And nationalism is undercut by secession. After secession, the bosses couldn't blame the Croat workers anymore.

But at the same time it is imperative that socialists remain neutral in the conflict of the various national sections of the bourgeoisie. That, and things like proletarian independence from all bourgeois forces, is why socialists can't endorse nationalism.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the problem is that you quietly place the word 'ultimately' into your explanation.

No; the workers in the state of Croatia - whether they consider themselves Croatian, Serb, or anything else - need to come together now. That is far more important than whether Serb workers want to secede. Why on earth would they want to, except because they've been suckered by a Serb bourgeoisie, or driven away and 'othered' by a Croatian bourgeoisie?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think the problem is that you quietly place the word 'ultimately' into your explanation.

No; the workers in the state of Croatia - whether they consider themselves Croatian, Serb, or anything else - need to come together now. That is far more important than whether Serb workers want to secede. Why on earth would they want to, except because they've been suckered by a Serb bourgeoisie, or driven away and 'othered' by a Croatian bourgeoisie?

Of course they were driven away by the Croat bourgeoisie, and secession would leave them under a largely Serb bourgeoisie (but also with some meaningful changes, for example no longer being under a legal system that is hostile to them on national grounds, an actual ability to conduct schooling in their language and so on).

But how do we fight this stranglehold of the bourgeoisie on minority workers? Certainly not by saying that, the wishes of Serb workers be damned, they must remain part of Croatia, for some obscure reason.

Yes, "ultimately" often amounts to "never", but I'm not talking about some sort of two-stage "revolution here" (democracy now, socialism never). It doesn't even matter if the Serb workers secede. What is important is that communists are not seen as upholders of Croat chauvinism.

[Blake's Baby]

We fight it by trying to get the Serb and Croat workers to unite, not by encouraging the Serbs to fuck off with their Serb bosses.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

We fight it by trying to get the Serb and Croat workers to unite, not by encouraging the Serbs to fuck off with their Serb bosses.

We aren't "encouraging" them, that's the same sort of rhetoric people use when talking about divorce. We're saying that, if the Serbian workers want to secede, that's their prerogative. And if they want to secede, we should work to organise both Serb and Croat workers to make that secession a possibility.

If you fight to "unite" the workers on the basis of an abstract programme that does not address their day-to-day existence, the minority workers are going to see this as covert chauvinism. And in many cases (I could mention the Lutte Ouvriere as an example) it really is.

[Blake's Baby]

We aren't "encouraging" them, that's the same sort of rhetoric people use when talking about divorce... if they want to secede, we should work to organise both Serb and Croat workers to make that secession a possibility...

Sure sounds like encouragement to me.


... If you fight to "unite" the workers on the basis of an abstract programme that does not address their day-to-day existence, the minority workers are going to see this as covert chauvinism...

Abstract? Sure. Calling for the unity of the working class and the overthrow of international capitalism is abstract. Not like concretely calling for workers to unite with their own bourgeoisie. That at least has the solid, practical results we're looking for, eh?

I don't know if you read this about six posts back when John Brown why I was arguing that the Palestinian working class needed to avoid the trap of Palestinian rather than the Israeli working class to avoid the trap of Israeli nationalism:

"Because no-one here is saying that (for example) working-class Israeli nationalism is positive. But they are implying that Palestinian nationalism is positive. It isn't. It's the Israeli working class that will stop the IDF, not the 'Palestinian people (workers and bourgeois)'. If the Palestinian working class allies with 'it's own' bourgeoisie, its oppression will continue. The Israeli working class can free itself by attacking its own bourgeoisie. The Palestinian working class can't, but it's a start."

The argument holds good for any minority. Instead of advocating and indeed working towards separating the minority (bourgeois and proletarian) from the majority (bourgeois and proletarian) we should be advocating, and working towards, uniting the minority (minority group workers) with the majority (majority group workers), while separating both from the other minority (bourgeoisie, of whatever nationality it chooses). The point about 'covert chauvinism' is if the Croatian working class (or the Israeli working class) tells the Serbian (or Palestinian) working class 'hey you should be fighting with us' then that can be perceived as covert (or not so covert) chauvinism. This is why it has to come from the side with the least stake; the Serbian working class needs to say 'we reject the claims of the Serbian bourgeoisie, we stand with our Croatian brothers and sisters'. If it doesn't everyone's sunk, basically.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sure sounds like encouragement to me.

Well then, it's "encouragement". That's not the point. The point is that communists can't simply ignore the demands for separation, and their real material basis. Or rather, they can, which would make them increasingly irrelevant. Now what Lenin suggested was joint action by workers of all nationalities, independent of the bourgeoisie, to force a democratic resolution of the problem - if the minority wishes to separate, it will separate. If it doesn't, it won't. To me this seems to be the only way to actually neutralise nationalism in the working class, both on the side of minority workers (who will see the majority workers struggling with them to address their oppression on the basis of nationality and language) and on the side of the majority (since the last thing a communist should do is fight to preserve "his own" "fatherland").

So what do you propose? Abstract hostility to any form of separation?


Abstract? Sure. Calling for the unity of the working class and the overthrow of international capitalism is abstract. Not like concretely calling for workers to unite with their own bourgeoisie. That at least has the solid, practical results we're looking for, eh?

Which brings us to another point: supporting the right to separation does not mean advocating unity with "one's own" bourgeoisie. Certainly, some sections of the bourgeoisie desire separation. But communists need to conduct their independent struggle, not put a minus anywhere the bourgeoisie puts a plus.


I don't know if youread this about six posts back when John Brown why I was arguing that the Palestinian working class needed to avoid the trap of Palestinian rather than the Israeli working class to avoid the trap of Israeli nationalism:

"Because no-one here is saying that (for example) working-class Israeli nationalism is positive. But they are implying that Palestinian nationalism is positive. It isn't. It's the Israeli working class that will stop the IDF, not the 'Palestinian people (workers and bourgeois)'. If the Palestinian working class allies with 'it's own' bourgeoisie, its oppression will continue. The Israeli working class can free itself by attacking its own bourgeoisie. The Palestinian working class can't, but it's a start."

The argument holds good for any minority. Instead of advocating and indeed working towards separating the minority (bourgeois and proletarian) from the majority (bourgeois and proletarian) we should be advocating, and working towards, uniting the minority (minoirity group workers) with the majority (majority group workers), while separating both from the other minority (bourgeoisie, of whatever nationality it chooses).

Leninists don't claim that nationalism is positive in any form. The point is that national self-determination is not the same as nationalism. A Kurdish nationalism, for example, would mean not just the separation of Kurdish areas from Turkish, Arab and Persian ones (which Leninists support as a democratic demand, if the Kurdish workers so desire, and if this separation doesn't conflict with the broader democratic programme of socialism, such as opposition to imperialist war), but unity of the Kurdish lands (which is of no consequence to Leninists; we don't care if there is one or three Kurdish states), and the oppression of Armenians, Gorani etc., as well as unity with the Kurdish bourgeoisie such as no-strike pledges etc. (all of which Leninists oppose).

Furthermore, why do you assume (1) that workers can only cooperate if they're in a single state, and (2) that workers will cooperate if they're in a single state? I mean, that's starting to look like the EU-fetishism of our CPGB crowd.

[Црвена]

What is a nation but a space between two arbitrary lines drawn on a piece of land?

I don't even understand how anyone can feel any affinity with the nation they live in for a reason other than their swallowing of what the ruling class idea factory churns out. But it is useful for the international bourgeoisie to invent concepts like "national identity," and "national pride," and use them to artificially divide people and legitimise their own actions, particularly their wars, in a way that sounds more glamorous than their real incentives to act.

[Zanters]

For blood and soil.

Doesn't make any more right when only blood is left out.

[Wht.Rex]

Depends on what kind of nationalism. It can be healthy, patriotic like nationalism, to love your nation for its achievements, how practically Soviet people felt (more specifically internationalism), or it can be bad nationalism, which leads to blind "hoorah-patriotism" and nazism, for being proud for accidentally being born in specific place and creating imaginary idiocies like that your nation is superior to another just because you want to.

[Blake's Baby]

That's a rather ethnocentric view of the world. Of course warlords and feudal elements still exist...

I said warlords are the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie are warlords, I didn't say there were no warlords.

I live in a monarchy. Of course 'feudal elements' still exist. The point is whether the categories that you outlined still exist. Nowhere is the bourgeoisie in conflict with the aristocracy; they made deals centuries ago. If you're still fighting the battles of the 19th century, I advise you to find a nice liberal bourgeoisie yuo can support and extol it progressive capitalist character against feudal tyranny, just like the social-patriots did in Germany in WWI.




...
How hard is it to organize workers now, without a bunch of warlords and imperialist invaders attacking you?It's very hard to organize workers, not just in one city, but nationwide, when you're under attack by powerful reactionary imperialist at the same time...

Boo hoo. Poor John, he must work hard. But socialist revolution is supposed to be easy peasy. No one told him he might have to do something hard!



...
So the Palestinians have to wait for the Israel proletariat, as of now weak and reactionary, to wake up and overthrow their own bourgeoisie? Liberating Palestine will have no effect on Israel's proletariat, but the Israeli's efforts do? According to you, the Palestinian proletariat can't wage their own class struggle against the the Israeli and comprador bourgeoisie, so they must wait for the second coming Israelis to come and save them, surrendering themselves to both Israeli and Palestinian bourgeoisie in the meantime? ...

'wait'? Where did I say 'wait'? The working class in Palestine needs to actively try to engage with the working class in Israel, and it needs to reject its own bourgeoisie.

The Israeli state, in case you haven't noticed, is in a position of relative power over the Palestinian state, and therefore also the Palestinian bourgeoisie. How is the Palestinian working class to defeat the Israeli state? Can it do it by 1-joing with the Palestinian bourgeoisie (thereby strengthening the oppressive apparatus of 'its own' state)? or 2-by allying with the Israeli working class against both the Palestinian and Israeli bourgeoisies? I am agog to hear how it's better to surrender to the local bourgeoisie than to unite with workers on the other side of the border.





...
There's many comprador and collaborationist elements that do benefit from the state of Israel, and many Israelis do profit off the oppression of the Palestinians.Thanks for letting me know where you're coming from.:rolleyes:

You can wax about the working class all you want, but failing to acknowledge that large sections of the proletariat face greater oppression, that most definitely go beyond "surface features", is the surest way to irrelevance...

Well thank God, the Pope, the Metropolitan Anthony of Moscow, the Dalai Lama and the IMF that there are those who retain their 'relevance' by becoming whores for the bourgeoisie, eh? Good for you John Brown, good for you. Keep up your crusade of hopping into bed with the ruling class, laughing at the rest of us who actively pursue 'irrelevance' by insisting that the liberation of the working class is the task of the working class.



...
Contrary to what Margaret Thatcher thought, there is a society, which happens to consist of people. Many of those people are racist.

Thanks Citizen Obvious, we know that. What you don't seem to have grasped is why, and what are the implications of this state of affairs?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Quick thought on internationalism.
It's one thing to call on workers to unite across national lines (one very necessary thing!).
It's another (and likely futile) thing to demand that workers simply pretend that national distinctions don't exist - they do. They're written into law and enforced; they rest, often, in very real material distinctions (language, custom, territory, etc.). That's not to say we should glorify these distinctions or hold them to be fixed or unchanging - they're certainly not, and nations have been destroyed and created throughout history.
But to simply say, "Workers unite! Forget your petty project of national self-determination!" is something like saying, "Workers unite! Women workers - forget your petty project of fighting rape and male supremacy!" It's idealistic for one, and, secondly, constitutes a real barrier to authentic unity on a basis of egalitarian relations.
Workers of oppressed nations can't just unite with workers of oppressor nations as though this reality doesn't exist. Looking at my own context - there is a real contradiction between Indigenous nations and settlerism, and as long as that contradiction remains, any "unity" between settlers and Indigenous people is going to reflect the material fact that the settler nation is premised on ongoing genocide (through environmental racism, targeting of indigenous youth by child services and the injustice system, etc.). Ending this relationship is a prerequisite for effective unity - not something that can be put aside ostensibly in the name of socialism!

[Ocean Seal]

This is besides the point perhaps (yeah, nationalism is reactionary, I don't think anyone here will dream of denying that), but the term "ultranationalism" never ceases to amaze me. Is there some number of miliplekhanovs when "nationalism" turns to "ultranationalism"? It's a nonsensical term, and one that is used to portray fascist nationalism as something unique, thus amnestying liberal nationalism and so on. Certainly the Italian liberals who supported the annexation of Libya, of Albania etc. were no different than the Italian fascists who supported the same - in fact the former had a tendency to become the latter.
I agree, expansionist nationalism is essentially on par with fascism in terms of the consequences that it has. Fascism is just the logical consequence of expansionism and desire for conquest. If you want militarism, then the best way to run it is fascism. But nationalism, as in national liberation is merely misguided ideology. It is the logical displacement of anger against the bourgeoisie to anger against comprador classes. It is sensible because if comprador's exist then national capitalism cannot. Many of the countries in which it is exhibited (national liberation ideology), are not yet developed for working class revolution. They need national identity to resist imperialism and create the conditions necessary for working class revolution.

[Raquin]

Nationalism: oppose
Socialist patriotism: support

[Blake's Baby]

You said: In the main, yes. But is this true for Afghanistan, India, Saudi Arabia, DRC, Myanmmar, Peru, ect.? Not quite.Incidentally it was those social-patriots who denied the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, and had a "White Man's Burden" attitude towards colonies. You may not be fighting battles that should have been won in the 19th century, others not so much.And you've fought in how many revolutions? None?Yes, WAIT...

You really are quite dense aren't you? You can pretend I said 'wait' all you like, - if you were cleverer, I'd think you were deliberately lying about what I'd said, but unfortunately I don't think you have the wit for it.

I will explain, yet again.

The Palestinian working class is oppressed both by its own bourgeoisie and the Israeli bourgeoisie. The Israeli working class is not significantly oppressed by the Palestinian bourgeoisie.

The Palestinian working class could overthrow its own bourgeoisie, but could not overthrow the Israeli bourgeoisie without the help of the Israeli working class. Or it could unite with its own bourgeoisie for a 'free Palestinian state'. In which case it might be free of the Israeli state but not its own bourgeoisie. The only way it can defeat both its own bourgeoisie, and the Israeli state, is with the help of the Israeli working class - which is what you're arguing against.

Why do you want the Palestinian working class to be oppressed?


...
Which sounds like the Palestinians have to wait for the Israelis, but the Israelis don't have to wait for Palestinian liberation. Back of the bus.

Do you think African-Americans should wait for white Americans for them to do ANYTHING that betters their lives?...

I don't really care what you 'think what I've said sounds like'. I think what I have actually said is pretty clear. I'm for working class unity against all the factions of the bourgeoisie.

You, on the other hand, are for class collaboration on ethnic lines. You believe that though class analysis is OK for white folks, it's too hard for brown folks. They should stick to their own.

You should change your name from John Brown - who was an inspiring revolutionary leader and certainly didn't believe that black and white should fight separately - and call yourself Uncle Tom instead. I suggest a new slogan - 'for a workers' apartheid!'. Then everyone will know that you advocate racially-segregated 'revolutions' that leave white workers oppressed by white bourgeoises and black workers oppressed by black bourgeoises.


...
Their national bourgeoisie is weak compared to the state of Israel, and dependent on Israel. The Israeli working class is generally bigoted towards Palestinians. They could overthrow "their own" bourgeoisie and it wouldn't change a damn thing, except strengthening Israeli bourgeoisie. On the other hand, liberating Palestine would free them up to take on "their own" bourgeoisie, weaken the Israeli bourgeoisie, and give the Israeli proletariat the opportunity to take on "their own" bourgeoisie too.

Nice, using sexist language. I'm shocked.:rolleyes:

Have you really lead such a sheltered life that you think only one sex practices prostitution? Really, are you that dim?

However, it was unfair of me to compare you to prostitutes, who are after all usually doing a job to get money. I assume you're not actually paid to spew your bourgeois shit, you're doing because you like it. That certainly isn't prostitution.


...How dare you accuse me of class collaboration, when your line is one of white chauvinism. And you just try to cover it up with phrase-mongering and bromides about the "working class", ignoring that much of the proletariat isn't white heterosexual males that live in in the US/UK. Yes, stick to your little bubble of working-class "purity", I'm on the side of the global proletariat...

No, you're a racist who wants to divide the working class even more than it already is. Take your shit elsewhere, I'm pretty sure the working class doesn't need it, it already has enough neo-fascist and ultra-conservative groups bleating about how 'there's too much mixing' and 'too much immigration' and 'each group should stick to their own'.


...Why don't you explain my experience of oppression?

Because I know nothing about you beyond what you've put in you replies on this thread. I know you're a shill for the bourgeoisie and nothing else.

So, why don't you explain my experience of lunch?

[Atsumari]

Self-righteous? Check
Hyperbolic accusations? Check
Simplistic statements about political movements and ideology with the word "could" often used? Check

I am sorry, but this is why I often do not bother to respond to left communists or leftists who pride themselves on sectarianism in general. They are similar to Christian evangelicals or Islamists when talking to people of the same faith, namely these ridiculous statements that this Christian or Muslim is actually against their religion for not doing X. When people like that dissolves a conversation into nothing but moralism, then I have nothing to say to them except that they are intellectually lazy and childish.

[Blake's Baby]

And this is why a lot of Left Communists call you 'national' socialists the left wing of capital.

It's simple. Are you for the unification of the working class across lines of ethnicity? Or are you for division in the working class along ethnic lines?

That is a question which separates the politics of the working class from the politics of the bourgeoisie. Pick a side.

[Blake's Baby]

I already took back the accusation you were a whore, on the basis that you're doing what you do for free, not being paid to shill for the bourgeoisie.

Unless of course you are being paid, in which case, yes, you're a whore.

As for Uncle Tom... I don't know what else to call your insistence that the working class divide itself along lines of race and ethnicity, and unite with 'its own' bourgeoisie.

[newdayrising]

The reason why European countries, Americans, and Japanese do not need nationalism because unity for all ethnic groups (major ones) has been achieved
Is this supposed to be a joke?

[Atsumari]

Is this supposed to be a joke?
We do not have huge numbers of people who identify more with their state rather than their country, we do not have huge ethnic divisions such as people who identify as German, English, or a specific religious group unique to that state alone.
In France, the country for the most part speaks French and identifies more with one another than say 200 years ago.
Germany with the exception of some Bavarian political parties for the most part identifies as German rather than some region of Germany.
In other words, people identify themselves more as whether you are white or black rather than all these specific identities.

And this is why a lot of Left Communists call you 'national' socialists the left wing of capital.

It's simple. Are you for the unification of the working class across lines of ethnicity? Or are you for division in the working class along ethnic lines?

That is a question which separates the politics of the working class from the politics of the bourgeoisie. Pick a side.
*Sigh*
In regards to feminism, many black feminists have identified as being a woman and black while white feminists simply identify as a woman. As a result, the interests, focuses, and worldly perspective for the black feminist is going to be much more different and of course the accusations that she is causing division in the movement for gender equality happens and that she should focus on the issues of being a woman and nothing else. Thankfully, this is less of an issue, but still Likewise, when I am told by liberals that I should identify as a human rather than seeing myself as Asian which causes ethnic division, I sigh and ignore them because when I hear that, the only thing I can get from them is that they can only see the world from a white person's perspective while utilizing cosmopolitan rhetoric.
Workers across the world have different ways of identifying themselves. The factory worker in America is going to be different than the one in Cambodia and the approach to worker's rights will be different, sometimes with a good solution, sometimes with a bad one. I would explain more, but I have to head off to work now.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I already took back the accusation you were a whore, on the basis that you're doing what you do for free, not being paid to shill for the bourgeoisie.

Unless of course you are being paid, in which case, yes, you're a whore.

As for Uncle Tom... I don't know what else to call your insistence that the working class divide itself along lines of race and ethnicity, and unite with 'its own' bourgeoisie.

Stop attacking a caricature. Resisting imperialism and colonialism isn't "divisive". Demanding that everyone fall in line behind oppressor-nation workers is divisive: not just in theoretical terms, but practically. Workers are always going to organize to throw off imperialism and colonialism, a) because they experience them directly as definitive aspects of capitalism and b) because they're not dogmatists who see reality in bizarre idealist terms in which capital is a perfectly uniform phenomena with only one dynamic which is identical always and everywhere.

Also, stop stigmatizing sex work.

[newdayrising]

Atsumari, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Do you mean all major ethnic groups in the advanced countries are united under the same flag? Or that they're united among themselves as in, each particular ethnic group in its own united entity?
Both alternatives are absurd. The first one because it's obviously not the case at all. In the US you have one of the most segregated societies in the western world with episodes like Ferguson happening all the time. In Japan you still have traces of a caste system, not to mention oppression of ethnic Korean and the Ainu people. In France the "major ethnic groups" are the ethnic french and maghrebi immigrants, and things like the headscarf ban show that any talk of "unity" is dubious, to say the least.
Similarly, the major ethnic groups in Germany today are not Bavarians and, say Prussians or whatever. It's ethnic Germans and Turks. I don't see how they're "united". You seem to have a 19th century notion of these things.
If you what you meant was alternative B, you're also wrong, because the ethnic groups are still separated internally by class interest. Both things are closely related actually because racism creates the illusion of a common interest between different classes inside oppressed ethnic groups.

[Blake's Baby]

As you're not attacking what I've said, but what you have decided to make up as a false position due to your own lack of ability to grasp even simple concepts (or are you doing it on purpose?), I don't really see any need to respond to what you've said. Anyone reading this thread knows you're either lying or an idiot, or possibly both. 'As bad as the Nazis'? You really are deluded. Workers need to confront their enemies, you want them to suck up to them. You're a collaborator. Look in the mirror: face up to what you are.

Rather than racism and bigotry not being real things, I claim that they won't be defeated by workers locking themselves in ghettoes with 'their own' bourgeoisie, which if you were honest you'd admit is your position. It is only by uniting across the lines of ethnic and national divisions that the working class will overcome those divisions, not by your socialist separate development. If the real John Brown knew what you saying in your name he'd kick your face in I'm sure. He died trying to unite oppressed blacks and whites in the USA, and you want them to separate themselves.

I've already said twice (and this is the third time) that I was wrong to imply your were being paid by the bourgeoisie for your advocacy. You are I take it giving it for free. If you are being paid as a mouthpiece for the bourgeoisie, however, then I stand by it. I don't think you should take it as a slur however. Prostitution has a certain honesty about it. I'm more worried about sex-workers taking offence at being categorised with you.

Your liberal hypocrisy is sickening, it really is. 'Oh but you can't criticise the bourgeoisie if they're not white, otherwise you're a racist, brown workers need to get together with their oppressors, not try to make common cause with white workers, m'kay? '.

Fuck that.

[Blake's Baby]

Only two type of people call others snitches without proof, fools and snitches. I can tell you're in the realm of fantasy at best.

You're asking workers from oppressed minorities to bow before worker's from dominate ethnicity You're still hiding behind some blahblah about the workers.. Why shouldn't white workers confront their own bigotry? And you did call nationalism of the oppressed "national socialism", though you were probably aping old theorists works...

Still arguing against something I haven't said? So, are you a fool, or are you a liar? I don't know, because I don't know if you believe that your bullshit is honey; but either way, I don't think anyone is going to swallow it.


...

You have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Constitution_%28John_Brown%29 John Browns constitution for a state of liberated slaves. And that you speak of segregation as something voluntary on part of minorities tells me you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about...

Well, at least we've answered the question as to whether it's mendacity or idiocy that I'm dealing with. I'm sorry, I didn't realise that I was dealing with someone of such limited metal capacities.

Please explain how John Brown's provisional constitution supports your belief that black slaves and white workers should have been struggling separately.



... You continue to accuse me of shilling for the bourgeoisie, and still you denigrate sex workers(who are mostly women). Name them or you're talking out of your ass...

Well, for the fourth time now, I think I was wrong to compare you to a prostitute. There are two reasons for this: firstly, most prostitutes are prostitutes in order to derive an income. They are workers. You, however, are doing what you ddo without being paid - I assume - and therefore you are not like a prostitute. Secondly, prostitutes are honest in what they do, and you're a liar. So, rather than a prostitute, I should perhaps have compared you to a priest.

Who is it that I'm supposed to name? the prostitutes I'm not comparing you to, or the bourgoisies that you're shilling for?

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to any prostitutes who might have been offended when I compared them to the user 'John Brown'.


...It's amazing how much you have in common with MRA and "White Rights" activists. Again, you act like racism is just something minorities got to work on, and that the dividing line doesn't exist.

And we're back to the idiocy having a little splenetic rant about things that you've invented. Really, have you got nothing better to do than get annoyed at things you've made up?

[Atsumari]

Now we have two people who are immaturely using ridiculous hyperbolic insults. RIP thread.
I will send you a PM later newday

[Zanters]

Holy shit. First of all, it blows my mind that one thinks they can be a nationalist and a communist. Water and oil, they don't mix. This is not to says nations don't exist, or that a nation can't be right or wrong, just advocating nationalism is what is wrong.

Two, are we fucking two years old?:laugh: bickering like a child John.

[Zanters]

A mod should delete the shit posts or trash this thread. Nothing of it is productive.

[RedMaterialist]

Now we have two people who are immaturely using ridiculous hyperbolic insults. RIP thread.
I will send you a PM later newday

These two represent Stalinism and Trotskyism. One wants socialism in one community first and the other wants international socialism first.

[Atsumari]

And what do I represent? :laugh:

[RedMaterialist]

And what do I represent? :laugh:

An Asian nationalist? Someone who is trying to combine socialism in one country and international socialism at the same time. So far, history says those two cannot occupy the same place at the same time.

[Atsumari]

Talk about a political identity crisis.

[Blake's Baby]

Not the first time I've been called a Trotskyist.

I still find it a little wounding though.

[prap]

I've never felt like the blue-yellow flag represent me, to me it's just a symbol for the monarch and the state. And nationalism is just rubbish.

:)